[bug#33311] [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05.

[Oleg Pykhalov]

Hello Pierre,

Apologies for not getting attention to this patch for a long time.  Also
thank you for working on StumpWM package!  I've succeeded to build and
run it. Please, take a look onto my notes about your patch below.

Pierre Langlois <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm in the process of switching back to StumpWM as my main window
> manager, and when taking a look at the package, I realised we still
> supported non-sbcl builds while upstream dropped them after version
> 1.0.0 [0].  So since StumpWM now only supports sbcl, I thought we should
> just rename it to "stumpwm" instead of "sbcl-stumpwm", as that's
> redundant.  And then we can keep the ecl-stumpwm variant, but downgraded
> to 1.0.0

[…]

> [0]: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/stumpwm-devel/2017-01/msg00007.html

Is there a reason to preserve an unmaintained ECL variant of StumpWM? My
guess is StumpWM users will stick to SBCL upstream version. Also
according to ‘M-x build-farm b =j ecl-stumpwm-18.05.x86_64-linux’
package is failed to build for a long time.  WDYT?

Please, add the following for Guix users with sbcl-stumpwm installed:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public sbcl-stumpwm
  (deprecated-package "sbcl-stumpwm" stumpwm))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

[…]

>>From 8180d03797ebd0c26adfc27276cc0682a04a0f8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pierre Langlois <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 09:51:05 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Drop non-sbcl lisp support from Stumpwm 2018.05.
>
> StumpWM version 1.0.0 was the last version to support lisps other than
> sbcl.  This renames the current version of Stumpwm to simply "stumpwm" instead
> of "sbcl-stumpwm" since it's redundant.  However, we can keep version 1.0.0
> around if somebody wants a version with ecl.
>
> * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (sbcl-stumpwm): Rename to ...

I think “Rename to stumpwm” and delete line “(stumpwm): ... this.” is
better, but no strict opinion on that.

> (stumpwm): ... this.
> [name]: Rename to "stumpwm".
> [arguments]: Set #:asd-system-name to "stumpwm".
> [properties]: Replace ecl-variant with cl-source-variant.
> (cl-stumpwm): Inherit from stumpwm but override the name.
> (ecl-stumpwm): Remove.
> (ecl-stumpwm-1.0.0): New variable.
> (sbcl-stumpwm+slynk): Rename to ...
> (stumpwm+slynk): ... this.

Same.

> [name]: Rename to "stumpwm-with-slynk".
> [inherit]: Replace sbcl-stumpwm with stumpwm.
> [inputs]: Ditto.
> [arguments]: Ditto.

Rather “[inherit, inputs, arguments]: Replace sbcl-stumpwm with
stumpwm.”.

[…]

Thanks,
Oleg.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature